You're right, Slobodan, but JPM was one of the "robber barons" who produced what was necessary...

And that is the point Russ! It takes two to tango. For JPM, Tesla was just a member of the public (as the Brits say). And so are countless others who help both Tesla and JPM become who they are. Their teachers, for instance. For JPM, what he owes to the public as well, is, as deejjjaaaa pointed out, the legal framework that protected him via contract and property protection. Without that, we would be still in the Wild West, with the law of the jungle and "might makes right."

Slobodan, Tesla did his thing and JPM did his thing. I certainly have a lot of respect for Tesla. After all he did a lot of this thing right here in Colorado Springs. But I have a lot of respect for JPM too. The propagandists have made him out a monster, but it takes a guy with a lot of drive to do the kind of thing he did. Somebody like that, Jobs comes to mind, doesn't have a lot of time left over to look out for the "public." The reason the US got where it got is because the "public" was, for the most part, able and willing to look out for itself. Unfortunately, we've lost a lot of that. Nowadays the "public" wants the government to look out for it. The change represents a terrible loss.

The reason the US got where it got is because the "public" was, for the most part, able and willing to look out for itself. Unfortunately, we've lost a lot of that. Nowadays the "public" wants the government to look out for it. The change represents a terrible loss.

indeed... go to shorpy and look at the kids working in mines... yes, they were able and willing to look out for themselves... how unfortunate that we can't go back to the times of JPM

Since I do not like either Romney or Obamy, I wish to keep this even. The pathetic part of Obama's recent comments is that they indicate he actually believes the lies that underpin his party's rhetoric! He seems to really believe that the economy in America is better now than when he started with his hope and change.

The basic problem isn't politics, the basic problem is the difference betwen people: there are leaders and there are followers (I was going to say 'sheep' but that would have been an oversimplification since some of the followers are more rampant wolf than lamb); there are entrepreneurs and also those who need to have work handed them on a plate with strictly defined functions for them to fulfil. I know this for a fact, having worked for years in engineering on both floor and in office as well as internal photo-unit. Nothing in life is a fit-all when it comes to earning one's keep; talents lie in different capabilties, aspirations and possibilities, too. You can give that golden opportunity to the wrong person and it isn't even seen for what it is. You can't train people to be that sort of on-the-ball person that business demands - all you can do is help those in possession of the ability along the way a little bit.

Trouble is, with so much populist support for state intervention in everyday life, people come to believe that the state not only could, but should supply all the answers to a happy life. That's patently absurd, because the state has no money: it can only screw it out of those who produce the environment that allows production to flourish and folks to be needed to do something for which they can get paid. And those folks creating the opportunities/needs, unfortunately for the left, are the very entrepreneurs the left so despises.

Mention’s been made of whether such things as fire departments, hospitals, schools etc. should be state responsibilities. I think that they should be, and that they should all be well funded in order to keep the nation at a decent level of health and optimism, without which nothing works well. It’s insane to imagine that the less talented and the very poor should be allowed to die off in the gutters of our cities; those people are there because of all manner of problems and you can’t pigeonhole people quite as easily as that.

The above does not imply that there should, then, be no private alternatives to the services of state. Many can and wish to provide for private medical care etc. and why should they be denied their right to buy that? Just envy?

Where state should be more active in being careful is in where it disperses the ‘social funding’ at its disposal. Paying money to those who simply don’t want a job isn’t an option, in my view, even though it is a reality. If you are unemployed and get state funds to tide you over – or even to maintain that state of official unemployment as a way of life – you should be required to do whatever menial jobs the state needs doing. You could be an out of work accountant, but your city needs the streets cleaned: so do it in exchange for your unemployment benefit. Pride and ego shouldn’t be factors when it comes to the taxpayer helping you out: do what needs to be done to help the community, even if you might bump into your neighbour parking his Mercedes just where you have your garbage truck. It could be his turn tomorrow – little call for his gloating at your troubles.

So maybe it's also partly the fault of the American Dream, where you are supposed to be No.1 and coming in 2nd is failure. That's crazy: as long as you survive at a decent level you should feel happy within yourself, and if you don't the problem lies in you, not anyone else and not any system of governance.

Should the day arrive when children all come from baby farms, then yes, the state will be your mama and papa and should then provide you with your keep. I think that's been pretty well tried, more or less, and where did it get anyone?

Since I do not like either Romney or Obamy, I wish to keep this even. The pathetic part of Obama's recent comments is that they indicate he actually believes the lies that underpin his party's rhetoric! He seems to really believe that the economy in America is better now than when he started with his hope and change.

Well ... your argument has symmetry, but no substance.

Output was in freefall and the financial system was on the verge of total collapse ... there is very little hard data that that would support the argument that the US economy is in worse shape now than in January 2009.

Try again! You can find something to criticize Obama for if you think about it ... my big critique of Obama is from the left ... I think we missed a once in a lifetime opportunity to regulate the assholes in the financial sector who play craps with our national credit. We also should have given debt relief to homeowners and not just the banks.

there are entrepreneurs and also those who need to have work handed them on a plate with strictly defined functions for them to fulfil.

Unquote

I would define this in another way. Without the "those" who work the entrepreneurs wouldn't have a penny to their name. It is possible to have a workable society without entrepreneurs but without workers you will have an earth that is akin to Mars...barren. Rob the last word describes your ideas on economics?

Output was in freefall and the financial system was on the verge of total collapse ... there is very little hard data that that would support the argument that the US economy is in worse shape now than in January 2009.

Try again! You'll can find something to criticize Obama for if you think about it ... my big critique of Obama is from the left ... I think we missed a once in a lifetime opportunity to regulate the assholes in the financial sector who play craps with our national credit. We also should have given debt relief to homeowners and not just the banks.

So I guess the US Department of Labor statistics are of no substance. The backbone of the economy is jobs. Google the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate. It is higher now than in 2009. You will also see that it started climbing in 2007. It has now fallen to a level that prior to 2010 was the highest since the mid 90's. Obama (and congress- republicans and democrats) have failed miserably.

Show me some actual hard statistics that the economy is better now. Lots of info to the contrary is very easy to find if you only open your eyes and your mind and look.

I do not trust Romney to do any better, so I am not defending him at all.

If the employers fail to take on new employees then it is hard for any government to force them unless the government hands out large bribes for doing so? In the UK it has been estimated that large firms have about £800 billion in their accounts that should and could be spent to kick start the economy. They will have to start spending at the same time because a handful don't want to in case the economy continues to dive, meaning they will lose their spending capital. At the end of the day it isn't the government that runs society but the private holders of wealth who will spend when it suits them to make profits for their own greed and not the overall good of the people.

If the employers fail to take on new employees then it is hard for any government to force them unless the government hands out large bribes for doing so? In the UK it has been estimated that large firms have about £800 billion in their accounts that should and could be spent to kick start the economy. They will have to start spending at the same time because a handful don't want to in case the economy continues to dive, meaning they will lose their spending capital. At the end of the day it isn't the government that runs society but the private holders of wealth who will spend when it suits them to make profits for their own greed and not the overall good of the people.

Stamper, you live in a dream.

The world has never worked in any other way, and all those countries that tried the other have fallen flat on their ass. Cuba awaits the end of the Castro family dynasty in order to have a rebirth; North Korea hypes up international tension to distract from its home-grown distress whilst China pays lip-service to one philosophy whilst actively pursuing the opposite! As for Iran... read North Korea. Its exchange rate has hit the skids to the extent that the currency is pretty much worthless.

Regarding your other post, and that without 'workers' there'd be no profits, of course you're right: nobody ever denied that, but that doesn't imply that the workers are some sort of sacred beast and forever noble; far from it, as I well know. Both factions need one another, and the mistake is for the 'worker' side to think it has priority and some divine right to work: it has work when work exists for it to do, and that varies all the time. Look at Spain with its crazy employment laws: most folks end up with a six-month contract, the dole all winter, and because of the expense of hiring/firing, much of the economy is black. I have lunch several days a week with a young chap running a sailmaker's business; he has a single employee and he'd love to hire another for the season, because work often comes in a tidal wave and then not at all. He simply can't afford to pay the social security that additional job would forced upon him, and so the company remains stunted, one more sailmaker has no employment, temporary or otherwise, and so it goes on, forever.

Blimey, I only posted a crappy example of political photoshopping. If I'd thought it was going to descend into a political bitching session I'd not have bothered.

BTW, did anyone else hear of the Republicans using a photo of an old Obama rally to illustrate a piece about how Romney was pulling the crowds? When the error was pointed out, the response was, "Well, it shows how Obama's support has fallen away, 'cos he gets nothing like that size crowd now". Which might be true, but the commentator (a Rep. politician) was clearly too stupid to notice how stupid a comment it was. Politicos, eh? Oh how the world would be better off without the majority of 'em.

I'm not from the US so I'll better steer clear of this discussion. But let me express my amazement about the wording used here. 'Socialism'? Really? Before '89 part of my family lived in a country which was then actually socialistic and I can say with confidence that it was not a bit like the US of A. Yes, they did have universal health care for example but so does Norway and Switzerland. The latter are seldom described 'socialistic'. You also don't get shot when you try to leave the country and don't get arrested for reading the newspaper of a 'hostile' country.

To me it seems completely over the top and irrational how this whole debate is led. I know things always get a little rough in times of elections but by giving in to that hysteria an actual debate -- which is urgently necessary -- is made impossible.